Tuesday, July 5, 2016

They Didn't Mean To Do It, So It's Okay...

So FBI Director James Comey's announced the FBI's recommendation that no charges be filed against Hillary stemming from their inquiry into Mrs. Clinton’s use of a unsecured, private home email server while serving as the Secretary of State. This is even while during his 15-minute statement where he admitted that everything that she has been saying for almost 2 years about never "receiving or sending emails that were MARKED as classified" or that there were never any security breaches were all the lies we knew them to be.

So let's review the events of last week leading up to this decision -

1. Monday, June 27, 2016 - Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch (a Clinton appointee) meet "by coincidence" on her private plane on the tarmac at the Phoenix airport and have a 30 minute private chat the contents of which are unknown because no one was allowed on the plane or to take photo evidence of same.

2. Thursday, June 30, 2016 - All hell breaks loose when it is revealed that the Clinton/Lynch had this meeting. Lynch stated that all they talked about were grandchildren and golf. Then, after bi-partisan pushback, she later made a statement along the lines that maybe it looked really bad and probably should get some other AG fired for speaking privately to the spouse of subject under investigation with the FBI, but she should be given a pass for showing such poor judgment. Oh, and yeah, she would most certainly abide by the FBI's recommendation whatever that would be but she didn't know at all what that would be because she has nothing to do with the FBI or their investigation and has no influence whatsoever. [Just to be clear, I paraphrase]

3. Friday, July 1, 2016 - After many, many months of trying to schedule it, Hillary Clinton magically "volunteers" to be "interviewed" by the FBI. She justs wants to help the FBI. Of course, it would have to be on July 4th/Independence Day weekend while everyone in the country is off doing patriotic things just like she wants to do with this interview because that is the only time she has to "volunteer" for the sake of the investigation that she wants to help. [Just to be clear, again I paraphrase]

5. Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 11am - FBI Director James Comey unexpectedly schedules a press conference for 11am to announce that...well, you know the rest.

Here is one of the key quotes amongst many that includes him stating that everything that Hillary et al. did was wrong and pretty much that all of Hillary's lies were really lies. I admit I am cherry picking quotes, so here is the full statement - LINK:

"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification."

"It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery."

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

And this in its entirety:

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past."

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."

So they knowingly violate laws governing the handling of classified information, lie about it repeatedly, destroy evidence, lie about the classified content and possible security breaches, and it is all deemed not intentional or willful.

Oh, yeah, one last item for the timeline -

6. Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 2:30pm-ish - Hillary Clinton jumps aboard Air Force One to go campaigning with President Obama after being cleared of all wrongdoing that not even Pres. Obama knew was going to happen at 11am.

26 comments:

I feel this is the most obviously corrupt D.J. In my memory. The WSJ had a devastating article juxtaposing Hillary lies with Comey's comments. Clearly, it is unprecedented to have a former Secretary of State and presidential candidate (presumptive nominee) be investigated for such serious charges. The statute clearly does not require "criminal intent". Still, te fact she lied repeatedly to the American people and get a pass proves people don't give a shit about character as long as their team wins

All of this is weird. Since when did the FBI decide whether or not a person is indicted? Their role is to investigate and provide the information to the prosecuting attorney. It is his/her decision whether to charge or not. Please correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't this speech have come from the AG?

Democratic strategist Basil Smikle argued that Hillary Clinton had not lied necessarily — but that she was likely as “surprised” as anyone by the revelations that her previous claims about her emails had been untrue.

Anthony, it is utterly astounding that in every defense of Hillary, her supporters paint the picture of an ever more incompetent candidate. To hear them tell it, she's like all Three Stooges stuffed into a single pantsuit. And yet they don't eve seem to notice.

I have long understood that there are actually old laws that are only used when a need arises. Like, NYC has a law on the books probably since the mid-19th Century that makes it illegal to march or rally with masks or face coverings (See: KKK). It had not been enforced since the '60s (Halloween parades are popular here), until Giuliani used the law to discourage a pending KKK rally in the mid'90s. He said he couldn't deny them have their right to rally, BUUUUUT because of this law, they were not permitted to wear their pointy hoods. Clever of Rudy...500+ KKK member rally turned into 12.

However to take our national security so lightly just because it's a Clinton is outrageous. At the very least she and her minions involved should be indicted and let a judge/jury decide rather than politics. If it and has been any other people, they would at the very least they would be indicted and immediately lose their national security clearance.

Gypsy - AND he produced the actual tape with the 18 minutes. He didn't try to destroy the tape, just that 18minutes. He did it, not anyone else. He didn't have an entire team of Tape experts pleading the 5th...just Nixon and his tape. He should have destroyed the tape...why didn't he?

I wonder what the IRS would do if I didn't file/pay my taxes. I mean I wouldn't be doing it in a malicious way. I just think that since CHarlie Rangel and other Congresspersons and government employees don't see fit to pay their taxes, that I think it must be okay. Nothing happens to them, right?

Anthony - I saw that. Comey has been ordered to answer questions before Congress as to why he gave them a pass when he admitted what they did was actually against the law. That ought to be entertaining. Others who have been charges or convicted of much, much less are filing papers asking for re-hearing in light of these new "rules".

Ooh, apparently Comey is being grilled by Congress House Oversight Committee on exactly what lead up to him deciding to change the law. Even Elijah Cummings is grilling him in a way that actually sounds like he is not amused with Comey as opposed to usual "why are we doing this again; this is such a waste of time" attitude towards any Republican, not Dems though.

And Comey is getting a massive grilling by Trey Gowdy who is just a master litigator. Gowdy is leading Comey to his trap...never ask a question you don't know the answer to or know where you want the person to go...

Comey says that Petraeus' actions were more dangerous than Hillary's????? Really, the general only gave some information to his concubine, we have no idea who has all the info Hillary was so cavalier with.

First of all, the Clintons must have learned something from Bill's foray into testifying under oath. Don't take an oath and demand no videotape, then you can't be charged with perjury. That's what Bill was impeached for...perjury - lying under oath.

And that is why Gowdy was going step by step asking Comey Gowdy: She said [fill in the blank] and that was not true correct? A: Yes.

She testified before Congress on these very same questions with the same answers - Perjuring herself under sworn oath before Congress and it is all on tape and aired on CSPAN too!

This is off topic, but I've been reading about the two police shootings.

I don't know what happened in Louisiana yet, though it's hard to see how two cops who get a man on his back need to shoot him after that, but the Minnesota thing is disgusting. Even taking the cop's position as entirely true, it still reads like a needless killing to me. It really sounds like he killed a law abiding, decent person just because the cop was too afraid to be there.

At this point, I think the police departments across the country really need to do something. They need to get rid of all the guys who are too angry, too afraid or too stupid to be on the streets, and they need to rethink how they handle suspect stops. I don't know what the solution is, if it means traveling in groups and filming everything or switching to rubber bullets or something, but it needs to stop.

If it doesn't, then liberal politicians are going to impose solutions that harm everyone.

This is something that only a tiny, tiny minority of cops are doing, but the rest need to put an end to this because it's wrong and because it will eventually hurt them all.

I was wondering what your take on the shootings were, Andrew, especially with all the outrage going on. I do agree that they need to head off the liberal politicians, though I'm not optimistic that they'll actually do it. It doesn't seem like many people or groups effectively resist the left these days, thus they keep winning and winning. I'm at my wit's end with it all.

On the main topic, this definitely wounded Hillary. I'm even seeing a number of left-leaning people express their disgust over it. Unfortunately with Trump being the alternative it looks like she and the Democrats still have the advantage in November. See previous comment about wit's end...

Daniel, Don't get me wrong. I have no sympathy for the thugs who attack the cops. If they die, it's their own faults. Nor do I see an epidemic. Nor do I have any desire to support the left and their bullshit... and it is bullshit. They want this to be true, and they don't distinguish between right and wrong, between justified and not, between good guys and bad guys. For them, this is a game.

But that said, I find the killings of the innocent people horrible and unacceptable.

Take the Minnesota thing. Based on what the cop said alone in Minnesota, this was murder. The police story is the cop stopped the guy for a busted tail light (which apparently wasn't busted). The guy has no criminal record. The cop says "give me your license." The guy reaches for his pocket. At the same time, he tells the cop he has a gun because he's licensed to carry it. The cop yells freeze and shoots him four times within a second later claiming he kept reaching for his pocket.

Why is the cop's gun even drawn? How is less than a second reasonable to see if the guy complies? Why would a criminal warn the cop he has a gun and claim to have a concealed carry license -- those people are generally law abiding. Why did the cop shoot him four times?

This all reeks of an officer who was terrified (or high on adrenaline) the moment he pulled the guy over and shot him at the first hint of imagined noncompliance. That's murder to me.

BTW, the girlfriend and the video seem to add that (1) the guy was returning his hand to the wheel when the cop told him freeze, (2) the cop claims he never heard the statement about the gun license, which frankly makes me wonder even more why he fired, and (3) the cop did nothing to help the guy after shooting him. They've also said this guy was a straight A student who worked as a public school cafeteria supervisor, and he and his family often talked about how to handle being pulled over because they might be carrying. From what I have seen to date, he did everything right and now he's dead.

Then you add in people being killed after they get cuffed, people who choke to death from lack of medical attention, people shot in the back, etc. Those are murder.

Unfortunately, while 99.999% of cops are great people, this tiny few are tarring the whole profession, are killing innocent people, and are letting the left exploit their acts to affect the rest of us. Something needs to be done to stop this, and that's going to need to be done by the police themselves unless they want liberal politicians to impose something that results in a lot of carnage.

I figured as much, Andrew, and hate that the agenda pushing forces people to take the action you suggested. I'm just not sure what they can do at the moment, nor is my faith in anyone's ability to take sensible action to stop the liberal politicians very high right now. It does feel like your first thought for an article was appropriate, Kit, though I know you disagree with that sentiment, Andrew. If you've got a good article about how things are actually going well I think we could all use it.